Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Utah AG Seeks Review Of Ruling That Says Highway Crosses Are UnConstitutional

April 25, 2011 by  

Utah AG seeks review of ruling that says highway crosses are UnconstitutionalThe nation's highest court has been called upon to clarify the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over another.

According to The Associated Press, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has asked the United Stated Supreme Court to determine if crosses can be placed along highways to honor law enforcement officials who were killed in the line of duty. Shurtleff's request comes in the wake of a 2010 ruling from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver that stated that such crosses were an unConstitutional endorsement of religion.

American Atheists, a group based in Texas, spearheaded a lawsuit against Utah in 2005, arguing that white crosses commemorating deceased highway troopers suggested Utah's preference for Christianity.

The 12-foot-high crosses were first erected in 1998 by the Utah Highway Patrol Troopers, the news source reported. They were paid for by private funds and were approved by the troopers' family members.

The Family Research Council (FRC), a Christian organization, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking a reversal of the decision.

"The Establishment Clause does not forbid government actions that appear to be a religious endorsement," said Ken Klukowski, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the FRC. "Instead, the Establishment Clause forbids government from coercing citizens to support religion. If there is no coercion, there is no Constitutional violation."

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Utah AG Seeks Review Of Ruling That Says Highway Crosses Are UnConstitutional”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jeremy Leochner

    The best I figure in regards to honoring the dead would be to focus on the stated or known religion of the individual deceased. Whatever their religion put the symbol that honors said religion. If the individual professes no religious beliefs perhaps put some symbol that was important to them or perhaps whatever the family requests. Its hard to say the best course. But I figure in regards to a memorial honoring the dead in the form best suited to those who have fallen it is not endorsing a religion. I would disagree with simply putting crosses to symbolize everyone but as I said if those crosses are symbolic of the religion of all those who have died I could understand. Perhaps lets treat them as symbols of everyone remembering and honoring the fallen rather than simply the governments official remembrance.

    • Vigilant

      Jeremy, you mirrored my first thoughts when I read the article. The crosses in no way reflect an endorsement of Chritianity, they reflect the religion of the deceased.

      This brings up a semi-amusing question. If a law enforcement official killed in the line of duty was an atheist, what would that 12-foot high symbol look like? Perhaps a huge “thumbs down” or maybe a picture of God in a circle with a diagonal line across his image? Agnostics could have the same sign but with a question mark instead of a diagonal line.

      Then we could secularize it completely. Union members could have a hammer and sickle, Democrats an image of Karl Marx, and the totally incompetent and feckless an image of Obama. The possibilities are limitless.

      • Cawmun Cents

        What is funny is that if they believe in”mother earth”,clearly a religion of sorts,then eviron(mental)ly conscious signs can be posted without complaint.I want them to tear down every environmental sign from Hawaii to Maine,from Alaska to Puerto Rico.Tear them all down…they offend me.

        • kinetic1

          Cawmun,
          Environmental signs do not denote one’s belief in an actual deity known as “mother earth”, but they do serve to alert people to the real, observable damage that one’s actions may cause. When you can show me a verifiable and repeatable cause and affect for, let’s say not accepting Christ as your Lord and Savior, then we can talk.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I disagree with you Vigilant on the symbols to represent those groups you mentioned. But I think yes in terms of the fallen a cross dose not represent endorsment of christianity if the religion of the fallen is christianity.

    • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

      Jeremy:

      “The best I figure in regards to honoring the dead would be to focus on the stated or known religion of the individual deceased”.

      The article states:
      “They were paid for by private funds and were approved by the troopers’ family members”.

      So, that is exactly what is being done.

      If atheists do not like it – they can leave. We will certainly not miss them. And we will be better off without them.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I suppose then I support the crosses. Though I disagree on atheism. Everyones views are valid and useful and everyone has a right to their own beliefs.

        • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

          Jeremy:

          Atheists do not have beliefs. That is theri point.

          God commands us in the Five Books of Moses to kill anyone who attempts to drive / lure us away from Him (God).

          That is exactly what atheists are doing, and trying to do, in this nation. They need to be gone – one way or the other. God Almighty is a warrior. He will love and protect His people as long as they remain His people. He will destroy those who are not His people, and those who turn their back on Him.

          It is all very simple. It is mankind who make it difficullt.

          • Robert Smith

            “God commands us in the Five Books of Moses to kill anyone who attempts to drive / lure us away from Him (God).”

            Now there’s a god with a lot of confidence he can hold onto his flock. ROFL

            How brutal the christian god can be and how his followers follow.

            Rob

          • Jay

            To be more precise Robert, In the first five books of Moses, God instituted the death penalty for heinous crimes against humanity, however, he did not sanction killing people who try to lure God’s followers away from Him! That would be an infringement and a violation on those who chooses not to follow God. However, anyone violating God’s laws risked capital punishment, which is in essence, justice, something this country has forgotten about. Again, you are incorrect, as usual!

          • http://naver samurai

            OMG! The morn (Rob) is back with his usual bouts of rhetoric, lies, inuendo, and Christian bashing (Which is considered hate speech by law). Just remember this moron: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson. Been proven wrong again! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • get right

            Samuri, don’t you think that our founding fathers were smart enough that they would have given us a national religion, if they thought we should have one? They created this country based on freedoms, not religions. Did you forget that they were escaping religious intolerance?

          • http://naver samurai

            Sorry get right, but you’ve missed something important. This country was founded on Christian principles. You do try to use good words, but to no avail.

            “This nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians. Not on religion, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Patrick Henry.

            We wre founded a Christian nation and not a secular nation. The libs are trying to force their secular humanistic ways on us and is responsible for the dismantling of our founding principles. Remember, secular humanism is liberalism and atheism combined in an unholy alliance. Try to understand what we patriots are fighting against and quit grasping at straws. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • James

            Old Henry, God’s Law was given to His chosen people, not the world. It was only applied to others that lived among them.

        • Karolyn

          We are ALL God’s children whether we have YOUR beliefs or not. Saying someone should be driven from this country because of their beliefs, is tantamount to Nazism. Would you drive all other religions from the US too?

          • Jay

            The education system has driven Christianity out of our schools, is that not tantamount to NAZISM?

          • http://naver samurai

            I agree with you Jay, but the disguise it in the viel of secular humanism. It’s a combination of liberalism and atheism, ergo Christianity gets left out. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

          • Jeremy Leochner

            With respect to christianity I believe schools are a place of learning in regards to science as opposed to theology. I would say Jay at my college which is a public school there are classes on theology and biblical history. Im told it teachs alot about chrstianity and in the case of theology goes in depth into the morality and philosophy of various religions. My issue with teaching a religion in a class setting other than something like what I just described, at least in public school, is that our schools are publicly funded and to some extent even teaching a diversity of religions unfortuantly implies or explicitly acknowledges religion over non or less religious. Its a fine line. I can think children deserve a chance to hear about the religion they follow but I feel such things should be left to a college or private school or perhaps a church enviorment. Let religion be taught in a strictly religious enviorment. Perhaps we can discuss it as part of history or perhaps talk about the connection of religious laws to laws of various historic empires. However I feel other than a discussion of religous virtues in the context of universally excepted virtues like humility, honor and kindness we need not attribute such things exclusivly to god or to a religion or to the divine. If the children wish let them go learn it in church or in their holy book of choice. But let us at least as a policy teach virtues of the heart, education and of our country in schools.

          • Jay

            Jeremy says: With respect to christianity I believe schools are a place of learning in regards to science as opposed to theology.

            I agree Jeremy, but you must admit, that is not the case! Neither science nor theology are being taught in our schools, but rather, Socialism! My ten year old Son is well aquatinted with all the terminology with respect to climate change or the global warming issue, or non-issue, and yet, was not made privy to any of the science to support that belief or assumption! Does the public education system teach true science? Hardly! They teach socialism! I urge you to read the document below.

            Dumbing Down America
by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld

            I am often asked to name those educators responsible for the change in primary reading instruction which has led to the decline of literacy in America. People ask this because by the time they understand the history of the reading problem and of the dumbing down process that has been going on in our public schools for the past forty years, they recognize that all of this is not the result of a series of accidents but of conscious, deliberate decisions made by our educational leaders.
            After twenty-five years of research, I can state with complete confidence that the prime mover in all of theis was none other than John Dewey who is usually characterized as the father of progressive education. Yet the change of the teaching of reading is probably Dewey’s greatest contribution to the tranformation of American education from an academically oriented process to a social one.
            The progressives were a new breed of educator that came on the scene around the turn of the century. These rejected the religion of the Bible and placed their new faith in science, evolution and psychology. Indeed, men like G. Stanley Hall, James McKeen Cattell, Charles Judd, James Earl Russell traveled to Germany to study the new psychology under Prof. Wilhelm Wundt at the University of Leipzig. It was these men who later imposed the new psychology on American education and transformed it permanently from its academic function to one dedicated to behavioral change.
            John Dewey got his education in the new psychology under G. Stanley Hall at John Hopkins University. In 1887, at the tender age of 28, Dewey felt that he knew enough about psychology to be able to write a textbook on the subject, entitled fittingly Psychology. In 1894, Dewey was appointed head of the department of philosophy, psychology and education at the University of Chicago which had been established two years earlier by a gift from John D. Rockefeller. In 1896, Dewey created his famous experimental Laboratory School where he could test the effects of the new psychology on real live children.
            Dewey’s philosophy had evolved from Hegelian idealism to socialist materialism, and the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.
            In order to do so he analyzed the traditional curriculum that sustained the capitalist, individualistic system and found what he believed was the sustaining linchpin — that is, the key element that held the entire system together: high literacy. To Dewey, the greatest obstacle to socialism was the private mind that seeks knowledge in order to exercise its own private judgment and intellectual authority. High literacy gave the individual the means to seek knowledge independently. It gave individuals the means to stand on their own two feet and think for themselves. This was detrimental to the “social spirit” needed to bring about a collectivist society. Dewey wrote in Democracy and Education, published in 1916:

            Read the rest of the article here:
            http://www.ordination.org/dumbing_down.htm

          • get right

            Jay, did you miss the point that our fore fathers didn’t want Christianty in our schools? Have you read the Constitution or any of the writtings of our founding fathers?

          • http://naver samurai

            You’re wrong again get right, moron! Did you ever read the Northwest Ordinance of April 7, 1789? “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.” Written and signed by George Washington, so where do you get they didn’t want Christianity in our schools? The religion spoken of is Christianity. Sorry, but you have to do better than that to convince this historian and now history teacher to believe such lib lies and rhetoric. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • oldtimeyman

      Here’s what the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      The First Amendment is a double-edged sword. On one side it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That clause has been universally accepted as meaning the government shall not impose a “state religion” on us. NOT that allowing a cross or reciting the Ten Commandments is an endorsement of a specific religion.

      The other side of the Amendment is the one most people have forgotten,
      “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

      When lawsuits are filed or complaints are lodged claiming an alleged violation of the doctrine (not law) of separation of church and state, I feel Christians have every right to counter-sue claiming their rights to the free exercise of their religion are being infringed.

      The only place I have discovered where “separation of church and state” is mentioned as law is in the 1937 version of the Soviet Constitution. I’m afraid our own Supreme? Court is imposing Soviet constitution law on Americans. I also think it is time we fight back.

      • kinetic1

        No one is suggesting that they do not have the right to place these crosses, only that they should be placed on private property so as not to suggest governmental endorsement.

      • IDart

        I agree 100% and untill congress makes a law establishing a state religion, noone has violated the firat ammendment. The talk about the establishment clause is just lawyer talk to divert your attention.

  • bob wire

    Tell me something, if Jesus had been hanged would the hangman’s noose be today’s symbol of Christianity?

    It’s truly amazing how mass”programing” really does work on people that we consider very bright.

    A Crucifixion had to be a grizzly event to witness.

    It begs the question, just how important is symbols?

    • Vigilant

      Even a cursory review of history will show you that for mass movements of any kind, symbols are more powerful than the realities.

      • Al Sieber

        I agree, symbols and ideas, you can’t kill a idea.

        • Jana

          Our beautiful flag is a symbol of the United States.

        • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

          Yep. Everytime I want to have a movement I look at the 2008 symbol for the Soetoro campaign…

          • Vigilant

            LOL!

          • http://naver samurai

            OMG! Now that’s funny! Ha, ha, ha, ha! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Vigilant

      “It’s truly amazing how mass ”programing” really does work on people that we consider very bright.”

      The election of Obama proves it, except that the mass programming worked on the ignorant, indolent and selfish.

      Those “programmed” bright folks built a nation unequaled for its religious tolerance, respect for individual freedom, work ethic and charity. Atheists and agnostics had a place in that building thanks to the wisdom of the Founders.

      I prefer that over the “programmed” atheists who built the USSR, don’t you?

      • Jay

        Not just mass programming Vigilant, but the “carrot on the stick” as well! Obamanites support their socialist, marxists leader, because they’ve been lead to believe that they can monetarily profit from the the sweat of hard working Americans while they sit on their couches watching Oprah and not lift a finger. Like insolent donkey dolts, they do not realize, that this “carrot on the stick” is their religious symbol!!!

    • Cawmun Cents

      If our money said,”In God We Trust,all others must pay cash.”We might not be in the mess we are in right now….just sayin’

      • Vigilant

        Excellent! LOL!

      • http://naver samurai

        Excellent idea! By how much the muslims make us pay for oil, maybe they can flip the bill for living here. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • bobbyb

    We are a nation founded under God; the Judeo Christian belief that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. This “seperation” of church and state is no where in the Constitution. It is based on a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist congregation in one of the very 1st states which told them the government would not come against them for being Baptists. They would make no law that would infringe on their right to worship as they saw fit. Due to the fact that our government, laws, Constitution are based on the Judeo/Christian belief, it is an abomination that others would be trying to change it. Our nation became great due to our Lords blessings because we gave Him thanks, honor and glory for who we are in Him.
    Once we started negating God in our society, God’s hand of blessing is being lifted, resulting in all the chaos we now see. God help the few who continue to seek and work in Christ, loving Him above all, giving Him thanks and glory, loving others in His love as we fight the good fight. If there was not Heaven to gain or hell to pay when all is said and done, this life would not make any sense. Whether folk believe or not, it is only right that we allow others the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under the laws of the Constitution, whom our fathers penned under the said guidance of our Creator.

    • Jana

      bobbyb,
      Great post.

      • kinetic1

        Trite, tired and long proven wrong, but if you go for this sort of rhetoric ….

        • Charles

          Kinetic1, What has been proven wrong? The letters written by Jefferson? The beliefs of the founding fathers? Most of the founding fathers of this country had university degrees in Christian Theology. Do your homework.

          • kinetic1

            Charles,
            Universities were almost exclusively run by the church at that time in history, so it is of little wonder that they had such degrees. To suggest that this means that our nation was meant to be Christian, despite the many documents to the contrary is illogical. This is not to say that their were no Christians or that some of our founders would have liked to have an actual federal religion, but that there was more to it than some of our current Christian “historians” would like us to believe. For instance, I agree and accept that Washington was raised as a Christian and likely was influenced by that upbringing, but I can’t ignore his interest in the enlightenment and acceptance of Deism. To suggest that he and others of his ilk founded this nation as a Christian nation just because they were raised Christian is no more logical than suggesting that they opposed any hint of Christian values because they became Deists.

          • Jay

            Kinetic1, our universities are no longer Christian, but atheistic! You have applauded the statement made by Jeremy when he said: I feel our country is great because it is founded on the principle of man recognizing the rights and equality of others as being equal to theirs. That I feel is our countries highest virtue and what makes it great and glorious.

            If you two truly believe this, then why are you not up in arms when Christians are denied their freedom to place religious symbols in public places, as well, when they are denied and even jailed for expressing their Christian views in the halls of our education system, where such views are strictly forbidden? Yet, only the atheistic worldview and the evolution theory is allowed expression in our socialist-marksist education system? Why not allow both world views to be taught or expressed, what’s the problem, why the double standard? Do Christian American citizens not also pay their taxes to fund the public education system? Is this what Jeremy meant when he stated, by recognizing the rights and equality of others as being equal to theirs?

            I think that both of you need to rethink your understanding of rights granted to all citizens, regardless of religious beliefs, and freedom of speech!!!

        • http://naver samurai

          Wrong again lib. Look at this site:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_vZpwWyEJU&feature=related

          It’s actually about five parts long and 45 minutes, but very informative. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Jeremy Leochner

      I disagree bobbyb. I believe that though our founders had a strong religious influence on their personal beliefs I dont believe it is a major influence on our republic. I feel our country is great because it is founded on the principle of man recognizing the rights and equality of others as being equal to theirs. That I feel is our countries highest virtue and what makes it great and glorious.

      • kinetic1

        JL
        HEAR HEAR!

      • http://naver samurai

        I do understand what you are saying, but here are just some things that you’ve missed along the way.

        Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle…In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity…That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. Congress, U.S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854.

        The general principles upon which the founders achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. There is no authority, civil or religious — there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell. The Christian religion is, above all other religions that have ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity. Sippose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for theie only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited…What a Eutopia — what a paradise would this region be! I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world. John Adams.

        In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed. Noah Webster.

        This tends to make me think, as we already know, that we were founded a Christian nation and not a secular state. Secular humanism is what is destroying this great country. Sorry, but the lib morons lose again. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://naver sook young

        Sorry, but I must disagree with you. This nation was founded and still is, to this day, a Christian nation. If you don’t believe me, please look at this:

        http://www.youtbe.com/watch?v=w-DzDCe5u3Y

        I hope this explains what I’m saying. Thank you.

        Sook Young
        Wife of the Samurai

    • http://naver sook young

      That was a great post. I hope you post more of them! Thank you.

      Sook Young
      Wife of the Samurai

  • Vigilant

    “The nation’s highest court has been called upon to clarify the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over another.”

    “Clarification” of the Establishment Clause should neither be requested of nor considered by, the SCOTUS. The First Amendment covers the actions of the Federal Government, NOT the states. To refresh our memeories, it stated “CONGRESS shall make no law…,” not “UTAH shall make no law….”

    Technically, the legislature of any state could pass a law endorsing a religion, or outlawing religious services altogether, if it didn’t go against the state constitutions. If fact, some states in the early Republic had religious tests for office, perfectly legal and constitutional.

    Those state constitutions were amended to dispense with the religious tests over time, but the fact of Constitutional law remains: the Federal Government has no business telling the states how to run their affairs in this area.

    • kinetic1

      Vigilant,
      I believe the connection is made when a state accepts funds from the Feds. Once in partnership the State’s actions reflect the Feds. I suppose if Utah wanted to divorce it’s State, Educational, Police, Highway (etc) departments from Federal funding, then they should have no problem.

      What is odd about this is that this issue came up in Utah. Traditionally the Mormon church does not display the cross, nor do their members generally wear them. I know that Utah is not 100% Mormon, but still the chances are good that if you pick a person out of a crowd….

      • Vigilant

        kinetic1,

        Your point is well made. The efficacy of the 10th Amendment was impacted long ago, when politicians realized they could sidestep it with the “strings always attached” federal grant/subsidy.

        State and local governments are just now realizing the folly of answering the siren call of “free” money from D.C. Notwithstanding the unconstitutionality of targeting redistributed funds to specific programs instead of for the “general welfare,” the taxpayers’ money is drying up.

        My state (NY) is close to bankruptcy due to the soporific of “free” money from the Feds, as is the school district in which I live and pay property taxes.

        If and when the states are weaned from the breast of big government, the states will once again be able to exercise their sovereignty as intended by the Constitution.

        • rufus

          Can we get slavery back?

          • Cawmun Cents

            you already have slavery back…its called the national debt.Welcome to bondage slave.

          • Vigilant

            “Can we get slavery back?”

            Typical liberal idiot comment. Guess you never heard of the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

            State’s rights are formalized in the 10th Amendment. Just because the CSA hid behind that amendment to support slavery doesn’t mean that all claims of state’s rights are bogus.

            Read your Constitution and some true (pre-1950 published) American history sonny.

          • kinetic1

            Ohh now Vigilant, watch yourself. Just because a book was written “pre 1950″ does not guaranty that it has it’s fact’s straight. Let’s not forget that much of what we “know” about George Washington was written by a huckster by the name of “Parson” Weems back at the turn of the 19th century. So much of our history has been written to sell books and entertain rather than to educate that we are only now finding the truth, much to the chagrin of many traditionalists.

          • Vigilant

            kinetic, I’ll cede the point. Parson Weems was a self-serving worshipper of Washington, responsible for the near-deification of that man and the enrichment of the parson.

            On the other hand, we now have the revisionists who have gone to the other extreme, an agendized campaign of smearing the very concept of Capitalism, even dropping one of the great Founders (Jefferson) from our history books (and that was the right wing that did it, on the Texas school board).

            The bottom line would be to read all history with a skeptical eye, check out the credentials and biases of the author, and, above all, to go to the original source documents. Works such as Howard Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States” is a perfect example of the communist slant.

            I recently engaged in a somewhat heated discourse about Abraham Lincoln and the causes of the Civil War. A relatively new set of revisionist “historians” is once again attempting to minimize slavery as a proximate cause of the war. Instead of relying on the jaundiced views of the slavery apologists, one should look at the Democratic and Republican national platforms from 1856 and 1860. In doing so, it’s made abundantly clear that the slavery issue was first and foremost the cause of that terrible carnage.

          • kinetic1

            Vigilant,
            It is clear that we agree on the effects of personal agendas on the truth. The original source is the best when available, though even then we must hold to the truth that the winners write history.

          • http://naver samurai

            If we have another 4 years of Obama bin Laden, we’ll be slaves to the government and the traitors that wish to destroy our country. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • Warlord X

          My favorite bumper sticker: “Revenue sharing HELL, it’s OUR MONEY!!”

          • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

            Warford:

            I can remember getting my first check from my first “real” yob and bitching about the with holding taxes. My parents were fairly conservative, but told me that it was necessary, blah, blah, blah. I screamed “It’s not their money”! They were agast.

            They were of the generation that did not seriously question the “guvment”.

        • James

          Vigilant, Most federal grants are not ‘free,’ if the feds must borrow the money they give to States, that becomes part of our national debt and the recipients of same must eventually pay it back in the form of federal taxes.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Randy 131

    If the Crosses were paid for privately, and not from government coffers, and the family of the deceased endorses them, then to forbid their erection is a violation of the 1st Amendemnt, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Since the erection of these crosses were not mandated or paid for by the government, then the government is not respecting the establishment of a religion, and since they were paid for by private citizens with the endorsement of the families for which they represent, then denying their erection is violating the free exercise of the religion of the people who are paying for them and the families they represent who endorse them, which is against the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. I don’t know how they do it, but these liberal appointed judges continuously think backwards when it comes to the rights of the American people, as if they don’t want them to have any rights, especially concerning religion. A vote for any Democrat, is a vote for appointment of more liberal judges, who even throw out the results of the people’s will, through their voting for laws to regulate our society. How much longer do Americans have to endure these farces?

    • kinetic1

      Randy 131,
      The funding of the crosses is not the issue. These crosses are placed along side the road and unless they are placed over the fence line on private property (which they are not) then the State would have to permit (endorse) their placement on Government property. Also, in researching the story I found out that the State seal is on these crosses, further suggesting the State’s involvement. No one is suggesting hat it is wrong to recognize the service of these men and women, but wouldn’t a large police shield on a standard highway post do the job?

      • Charles

        Kinetic1, If I were to place a sign or cross in my flower bed at my own expense; and affix the Utah State Seal to the sign or cross, does that imply that the State of Utah has endorsed my flower bed?

        • kinetic1

          Charles,
          If your flower bed were on State land the connection would be reasonable.

    • James

      Randy 131, the First Amendment isn’t the right to be religous, it simply prevents Congress from passing any law concerning religion. Our rights are unalienable, they’re not dependent on any document for their existence.

      • http://naver samurai

        Correct. They are God given and can only be taken from us by Him and no other. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • HHH

    First, there is no god and no evidence of any supernatural “being” or “creator”. There is no evidence of a Jesus ever living or dying, but there is evidence of the christ story thousands of years before all in other countries and other cultures. The mythology that supports the bible and its stories have deluded people to this day, and if religion does anything, it creates distrust, war, torture, and every evil known to man. The founding fathers wanted a secular government and this is supported by all that was written by them. Crosses are a christian symbol, and should not be displayed on any public ground or in any government building. To push the idea of a religion onto those who don’t believe should not be allowed. You know it is a myth!!!

    • Raggs

      Your a complete LIAR! and an idiot…

      • rufus

        Sorry, he is not. Ask the Native Americans how christian the Christians were towards them.

        • crystal

          …and look at the Native Americans condition now!!!

          • kinetic1

            crystal,
            Are you suggesting that things are better or recognizing the damage done?

          • rufus

            The few that are left, live mostly in poverty. However, they are trying to bring back their culture thanks to your gambling dollars.

          • Cawmun Cents

            No things are not better…they do however go better with Coke.

        • Jay

          Hey dumb dumb, not all were Christians, you racist pig! There are those who wear the label, false Christians, and those who are truly Christians who did not stoop and committed such crimes! Is it to much to ask from booby twits like yourself to present a more comprehensive historical perspective, rufus?

          • http://naver sook young

            For him to do that, he would have to posses intelligence on that matter. He clearly doesn’t posses anything but ignorance. Thank you.

            Sook Young
            Wife of the Samurai

        • Jay

          HHH, is a liar, rufus, and so are you! To say that there is no evidence that Jesus Christ ever lived or died, when there is a mountain of documented historical evidence, is to say that one who makes such a statement, is either intellectually bankrupt, or a moron. As for HHH, and you included, I suspect that you both suffer from said maladies!!!

          • http://naver samurai

            Yes, I agree with you that they are complete morons and are bereft of intelligence. If they want proof that God and Jesus do exist, they just have to read the Bible and they’ll know. Of course being able to read and having an education would probably help them on this subject also. They are just a waste of time and not even worth debating. Keep up the good fight, fellow patriot! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Vigilant

      Christians take it as a matter of faith that God exists. Atheists take it as a matter of faith that he doesn’t exist.

      Atheists say there is no proof that God exists, but can furnish no proof that he doesn’t exist.

      • rufus

        The Christians can not show any proof that he exists. So, what is your point?

        • Charles

          The tooth fairy told me not to believe in atheists.

        • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

          All you have to do is stand outside and look around. Take a walk in the woods / forest.

          Next time you are in a doctor’s office look closely at the picture of, say, the human ear / throat. Look at the picture of the humam cody, what it does and how it does what it does.

          Anyone who truly looks and does not believe in God is not truly looking at what they see.

          I cannot see the wind, but I can see what it does. And as with God, I can feel its presence.

          I truly hope I am never at the bedside of a dying atheist.

        • Jay

          You cannot show any proof God doesn’t exist, what’s your point?

        • http://naver sook young

          You just need to read the Bible to know he exists. You have to prove that he doesn’t, but I’m sure you can’t. Thank you.

          Sook Young
          Wife of the Samurai

      • kinetic1

        Vigilant,
        Can you prove that Santa Clause does not exist? Your argument follows along the same logic as a clinically paranoid person who argues that his mental condition does not prove that he is not being followed.

        • Cawmun Cents

          Since there are clearly more people who believe than who do not,you have to ask yourself,why do I not believe?If there are more religious people than those who have no religion,then who is missing what?Are billions of believing people all wrong?Hard tellin’ not knowin’.So how do you think science works?Somone comes up with a theory that is widely accepted as fact,then someone comes up with a better theory and all of a sudden what was accepted as fact all those years,is now no longer fact?Christianity is not based on fact.It is based on faith.You can,if you wish,deride folks for having faith and state your supposed facts.But you wont change peoples minds through your observations.They are likely as flawed as ours are.The fact that you dont see that is quite amusing to those of us who have faith.Just as amusing as our faith is to you.One day you will see,or we will not.That is all.

          • rufus

            More believe in other religions not christianity

          • Cawmun Cents

            What is your beef with Christianity that you dont have with any organized religion?Or are you a hypocrite?Do you only hate Christians?That would make you a hypocrite.Then you would be the same as you accuse us of being.THAT IS VERY AMUSING.

          • kinetic1

            Cawmun,
            You assume to know what I do and do not believe based on my making a rational argument against the flawed idea that those who do not believe must prove that there is reason not to. As you say, believers base their argument solely on faith, with nothing but the teachings of the past to go by. Those who do not believe simply state that unsubstantiated tales told by men over thousands of years are not proof, but simply stories that may or may not hold a kernel of fact. What about the many books that were not accepted for inclusion in the Bible? Why are there so many translations? Why are there so many conflicting stories? It’s not a question of whether or not the Bible alone is factual, but the books of all great religions are in question.

            So why do so many people believe? For the uneducated, it may simply be tradition. These stories, like all the other stories that carry the history and customs of their culture have always been accepted and always will. For others it is the need to believe that their is something more to life. It is hard to accept that we may have nothing to look forward to after death, and religion tells us not to be afraid. I’s comforting to think that someone is watching over us and will save us from life’s pitfalls if only we believe. And then there is our inability to fathom anything without a beginning or an end. We see life through our experiences and often cannot conceive of anything so abstract. Religion serves to answer life’s unanswerable questions, true or not.

            As for science, the term “theory” does not hold the same meaning as it does in religion or philosophy. Of course religion often does not consider the works of their religion as theory, but asserts that it is factual and the word of God. This serves to highlight the fact that, unlike science, philosophical theory is not necessarily scientifically testable through experiment. Modern science requires much more research and evidence before it is accepted, and even then science is open to the possibility that new facts may prove it wrong. Religious leaders and to an even greater degree their followers are rarely so willing to accept new evidence that their beliefs are wrong. The Jewish faith did not alter it’s self to accept Christ any more than many Christians have been willing to accept the fact that much of the Bible was mistranslated.

          • http://naver sook young

            Sorry rufus (dufus?), but Christianity is the largest religion in the world. Thank you.

            Sook Young
            Wife of the Samurai

          • Cawmun Cents

            kinetic1,be careful what you assume to be”education”,you may find out it was all meaningless to begin with.

          • Cawmun Cents

            kinetic1,the main point of what I have said all along is that faith is the cornerstone of Christianity.My God has said to me,(through the words in scripture you claim have been mis-translated by whatever source you have to claim that by,which is undoubtable by your standards I am sure)that He will never be found through human wisdom.At first this sounds like a disclaimer,keeping the Greeks form denying His exsistence,but even they had a placard for an unknown God,with nothing there.How do you explain that?Why is hatred observable but love is not?You cant fake love,you either love or you dont.But you can make a show of what you dont have,if you dont love.Actors were called hypocrites in ancient times,do you know why?Because they had a knack for showing false emotion.Scientifically that does not compute.You see if science were the way to truth then it could explain lies,and therefore truth.But it woefully cannot describe either.What you will be left with in the end analysis after debate is merely the truth is and a lie is not.Doesnt sound very scientific does it?It is easy to smoke out a lie but what about the truth?Can you with all accuracy,portray the truth every time?Of course.Can you with all accuracy establish the truth at all times?No,sadly you cannot.Not even with scientific method and all the fallacial arguments that come with it,can you establish absolute truth.Why is that?Have you ever thought about that?The absolute truth obviously exsists right?How come science cannot prove it?If science were the answer to all questions then it would be the proof right?But it is not the answer to all questions.Some things cannot be answered by science.In which case you have to take them on faith,correct?Now you have established that some things must necessarily be taken on faith.You could try for a million years to prove to me that you love someone,but you might just be acting like you love someone,right?So in the absence of absolute knowledge of that,I must therefore take it by faith that you love someone.There is no way for you to prove it to me which kind of rules out scientific explanation,dont you agree?How can science be an absolute if it cannot prove that you love someone?All the combined knowledge of the ages of brilliant minds cannot do that simple task.Yet you claim science is the way to complete knowledge.Am I missing something here,or is science woefully overestimating its own importance?Only time and faith will tell.

        • Vigilant

          kinetic says, “Can you prove that Santa Clause does not exist? Your argument follows along the same logic as a clinically paranoid person who argues that his mental condition does not prove that he is not being followed.”

          You obviously have no familiarity with a school of philosophy called “empiricism.” Alfred Jules Ayer was a leading proponent of empiricism. Simply stated, it says that if you purport to prove or disprove any hypothesis, you must first furnish the actual or potential scientific (empirical) test to do so.

          Neither the atheists nor the religious can furnish such a test. Ayer calls all argument regarding the supernatural (metaphysical) neither right nor wrong, but simply nonsensical. What it boils down to is that atheism accepts on faith alone that God does not exist.

          I can furnish a scientific test procedure to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. Can you furnish one to prove that God doesn’t exist? I didn’t think so.

          By your own faulty reasoning, you have shown us that you are clinically delusional because you can not prove that God does not exist.

          Next question.

          • kinetic1

            Vigilant,
            While I am familiar with the concept of empiricism, I don’t think that others on this site are interested in our debate over the values of it or rationalism and historicism. Essentially your argument is based purely on philosophy and the views of a few scholars, but chooses to ignore a few simple ideas. If I were to say that I can not see electricity and therefore it does not exist, you might ask me to prove that it does not. I have nothing but faith, but you would provide proof that my faith is flawed. The evidence is hard to refute (and often painful.) I tell you that I do not believe in God and you offer the Bible and millions of people who believe he is real as proof. It is no more proof than a book of Greek mythology.

            Act’s of nature are blamed on God. Some Christian believe that God brought about wars and earthquakes because he doesn’t like Gays. There is no consistency, no evidence to suggest the many events that are blamed on “God” are the result of anything other than nature and human arrogance, but believers accept the words of their leaders on faith. They are manipulated and led to the slaughter based on faith. Deists accept that there must be something that created all this, because we are incapable of believing that something can come from nothing. Atheists point out that there is no real evidence to suggest the existence of a “God” and accept the fact that just because we can not conceive of it does not make it so.

            P.S. Please do provide that scientific test procedure to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. Remember, we’ll be using the same mindset as religion.

          • Vigilant

            kinetic,

            Let me address your second paragraph first. I am not arguing in favor of Christianity per se. The discussion, I thought, went deeper than that.

            You seem to fall prey, as atheists often do, to the fallacy that the acts or injustices of human beings somehow prove or lend evidence to the absence of a deity. The argument has no basis in logic. Thus, the oft-quoted references to the Inquisition, and the favorite of all time, “religion has killed more people than any other cause in history.”

            Human beings act and react, commit foul deeds and follow the herd or the Jim Jones’ of this world. Such things do not disprove the existence of a supreme being, they merely show that humans tend to act in a manner harmful to their own well being, can be misguided and hoodwinked into thinking that brutal and hurtful acts are sanctioned by the Almighty.

            Many atheists seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I don’t mean you, kinetic, or DaveH or Jeremy, whom I consider worthy opponents with good heads on your shoulders when it comes to discussing this subject. I mean the very rabid anti-Christian atheists who prefer to throw insults and brickbats at organized religion purely for the sake of shock value and denigration. They see people doing bad things in the name of God and make a quantum leap to condemning the God rather than the person.

            I’ve often said that, once you organize anything, it turns to garbage. But to attribute priests’ pedophilia or the excesses of the Inquisition to anything other than the frailty of human beings is ridiculous. Those horrible things do not detract in any way from the theological position that God exists. They merely show how the human opportunists can distort and pervert a noble concept to their own gain.

            You say, “Acts of nature are blamed on God. Some Christian believe that God brought about wars and earthquakes because he doesn’t like Gays.”

            Look at what you said: “SOME Christians believe…,” not “the existence of God is disproven because some Christians choose to believe…” I must ask you, in all sincerity, is it just the Christian God, based on the Bible, that you don’t believe in because you see Christians doing thinks that are not moral?

          • Vigilant

            kinetic, you said, “While I am familiar with the concept of empiricism, I don’t think that others on this site are interested in our debate over the values of it or rationalism and historicism.”

            If that’s the case, do you, not others on this site, wish to have a meaningful discussion on the matter or not? On matters as crucial as the existence of God, I would think any reasonable discussion and enlightenment would be desirable.

            The following statement of yours virtually proves my point: “If I were to say that I can not see electricity and therefore it does not exist, you might ask me to prove that it does not. I have nothing but faith, but you would provide proof that my faith is flawed. The evidence is hard to refute (and often painful.)”

            Painful indeed it would be. The difference is that I can scientifically prove that electricity exists, and your faith would indeed be flawed. My father used to jokingly say that television doesn’t exist because he couldn’t see how invisible electromagnetc waves could create a picture.

            Now let’s look at it in a similar case. Say you are an atheist who claims that, because he cannot see God, therefore God does not exist. No Christian could propose any scientific test to prove to you that he does exist. Your definitive statement, “therefore God does not exist,” is neither provable or unprovable since, by your own admission, God is like electricity, unseen.

          • Vigilant

            kinetic,

            Your statement is very telling: “I tell you that I do not believe in God and you offer the Bible and millions of people who believe he is real as proof. It is no more proof than a book of Greek mythology.”

            Personally, I do not offer you the Bible or numbers as proof (I am not a Christian). My simple statement was that Christians are continually assailed for proof of God’s existence, but the atheists have never been able to furnish any disproof. The thrust of my point is as follows: no atheist can claim an advantage over a believer by demanding proofs, when the atheist can not provide proof otherwise.

            I am encouraged by your claim that you “do not believe in God…” in the sense that you rightly claim it to be a BELIEF, not a definitive statement that God does not exist. Since you characterize it as a belief, it means you take the proposition on faith. Do you see my point?

          • Vigilant

            kinetic,

            Now, to address your postscript: “P.S. Please do provide that scientific test procedure to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. Remember, we’ll be using the same mindset as religion.”

            This is a bit silly after all of the above discussion, but here goes:

            Language and definitions are all important in philosophical or scientific premises. We must first define “Santa Claus.”

            If Santa Claus is, by definition, an admitted caricature of a nice bedtime story and never intended to refer to an actual person, then the answer is clear. No one would seriously engage in a discussion or proof or disproof.

            If Santa Claus is defined as a true supernatural figure, who can make reindeer defy gravity and who delivers presents every Dec 24-25, then we can devise tests to prove or disprove his existence. We can set up cameras, including infrared and ultraviolet, in a number of test sites in living rooms. We can attempt to detect his travels by radar. We can go to the North Pole. We can track sales records to determine if an extra present or two show up beneath every kid’s Christmas tree. etc., etc., etc.

            I think you’ll agree that we could definitively disprove his existence in this manner.

            The Christian, on the other hand, cannot “prove” that God exists, and seems to waste a lot of time bringing in historical references, appeals to the Shroud of Turin, modern day miracles, etc.

            I think most Christians do not realize that God BY DEFINITION can not be proven. No means, other than appeals to faith, can definitively prove his existence. I said, “by definition,” and that means that no being which transcends all existence, which is INFINITE in nature, can ever be properly proven, much less completely understood, by the finite and faulty faculties of humankind.

            Another news bulletin for Christians: if we could prove God’s existence, he would cease at that moment to be God. He would then be something we could measure and describe, a finite part of the universe that would be just another scientific phenomenon.

          • Jay

            Kinetic1, We associate science with ideas like hypothesis, experiment, data, evidence, modified hypothesis, theory, prediction, explanation, and so on. But a precise definition of science is elusive.

            For instance, Michael Ruse says that science “by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law.” On the plus side, this definition would certainly allow us to distinguish between astronomy and astrology. However, it would rule out most of contemporary cosmology as science. After all, the history of the universe is not repeatable!

            Ruse’s inadequate definition reminds us that not all science carries with it the same kind of authority. There is a danger of endowing inferences to the best explanation about unrepeatable past events with the authority of results derived from repeated experimentation.

            To complicate matters even further, the Enlightenment ideal of the observer–one completely independent; free of all preconceived theories and prior philosophical , ethical, and religious commitments, doing investigations and coming to dispassionate, unbiased, rational conclusions that constitute absolute truth, is nowadays regarded as an idealized myth.

            In common with the rest of humanity, scientists have preconceived ideas and world views that they bring to bear on every situation. Even observations tend to be “theory laden”; we cannot take a temperature without having an underlying theory of heat.

            Also, theories tend to be underdetermined by the data; for instance, infinitely many curves can be drawn through any finite set of points. Furthermore, at the quantum level the very process of observation gives rise to disturbances that cannot be ignored.
            By its very nature, therefore, science posses a certain degree of provisionality.

            It should be noted, that this is far from implying that science is a totally subjective and arbitrary social construct, as has been suggested by some post-modern thinkers. It is probably fair to say that many scientists are critical realists who hold that their theories, though not amounting to “truth” in any final or absolute sense, nevertheless give them an increasingly firm handle on reality. For example, consider the development of the understanding of the universe, from Galileo via Newton and Einstein.

            Are there any limits to scientific explanation?
            At the materialist end of the spectrum, some hold that science is the only way to truth and can (ultimately) explain everything. According to Peter Atkins, “There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence.” This view is called scientism.
            If Atkin’s claim were true, it would at once spell the end of many academic disciplines, such as philosophy, ethics, literature, poetry, art, and music. How could science tell us whether a poem is a bad poem or a work of genius? Science can tell you that if you add strychnine to someone’s drink, it will kill her, but it cannot tell you whether it is morally right or wrong to put strychnine into your grandmother’s tea in order to get your hands on her property.

            Worse still, scientism is incoherent. Bertrand Russel, (a homosexual) wrote, “Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.” But Russel’s statement is not a statement of science, so if his statement is true we cannot know it, which contradicts the very assertion that is being made! It is therefore incoherent.

            Those who are committed to scientism regard all talk of God and religious experience as outside of science and therefore not objectively true, whatever the benefits claimed for it. But for them, thinking about God is like thinking about Father Christmas, dragons, or fairies. The fact that you can think about them does not mean that they exist. These scientists, are more then happy to let people go on thinking about God and religion so long as they do not claim that God has any objective existence or that religious belief constitutes knowledge. The atheists bottom line therefore, is this: Science deals with reality, religion does not. Such a view is, of course, untenable for a Christian.

        • http://naver sook young

          Since Santa Claus doesn’t exist your statement posted goes without merit. Can you prove God and Jesus do not exist? What proof and evidence can you provide that proves atheism is accurate and correct? Please don’t talk about science, because you use that too much as a crutch. Thank you.

          Sook Young
          Wife of the Samurai

    • Vigilant

      HHH says, “To push the idea of a religion onto those who don’t believe should not be allowed.”

      Nor should atheists push their idea of atheism onto those who do believe.

      • rufus

        What ideas? Scientific?

        • crystal

          I find you amusing. You hate God and spend so much time arguing about something that isn’t suppose to exist.

          • kinetic1

            crystal,
            To borrow from your texts, don’t hate the God (or the idea of one) hate the actions of the believers. And let’s not forget that many of our founding fathers we’re Deists and therefore recognized the possibility of a supreme being but did not accept the traditions and beliefs of the Christian church. It’s not all that hard to dislike the more “active” members of any religion whether or not you accept the existence of a God.

          • rufus

            Please respond. What ideas?

        • Vigilant

          “…Nor should atheists push their idea of atheism onto those who do believe.”

          rufus, you are defeated by the very science you extoll.

          Give me one possible scientific test that could prove or disprove the existence of God.

          It’s always a joy to puncture the baloons of atheists who attempt to rely on science to disprove a hypothesis that is innately unscientific.

          Some day, the atheists might come around to the idea that their beliefs are just that, beliefs (faith) and naught else. But I doubt it.

          • Jay

            But atheists do push their ideas on us, Vigilant! Our education system is dominated by atheists and the atheistic religion. They freely and openly teach the children atheism and evolution, but forbid the mention of anything that is theistic, much less God. The evolution theory is enforced by the public education system, while a mere whisper of the theory of creation will end you in the slammer! It is the atheists and evolutionists that have become the cruel religious crusaders, hell-bent on silencing and squashing anyone that opposes their atheistic religion!

          • Vigilant

            Jay,

            I have to agree with you that secular humanists are too vehement in their insistence that we expunge God from all education.

            Many, yourself probably included, will disagree with me when I say I believe that the fact (not theory) of evolution is in no way inconsistant with a belief in God. I believe you can have your cake and eat it too.

            I’ve also seen powerful SCIENTIFIC arguments for intelligent design that have been summarily discarded by the hard core lefties out of their fear that it gives some impetus to the arguments of the religious.

            If an education is to be considered an education, I believe it has the obligation to show differing sides of an issue and leave it to the student to determine if there is a conflict or, as I believe, the conflict doesn’t exist.

          • Jay

            Vigilant, you’re absolutely right! I find the doublespeak by some of these radical atheist lefties here, amusing! They absolutely fail, or are incapable, of seeing their double standard mentality which they proudly display in print! Go figure!

        • http://naver sook young

          Since most science is theory it cannot be a basis for this discussion. How can you always use science as a crutch for your obvious atheist beliefs, when more than 90% of our modern day science was discovered by Christians? If you at least tried to present some facts and cite some sources you may be more believeable. Thank you.

          Sook Young
          Wife of the Samurai

    • Macawma

      Just the same, to push YOUR non-belief on others is doing exactly what you say we believers should not do, HHH. I’ll keep my faith in Christ Jesus, thank you very much.

      • kinetic1

        Macawma,
        I support your right to insist that Atheists not be allowed to post atheist symbols on government property along the side of the road, but then I’ve never seen such a thing.

        • Jay

          kinetic1, are you not aquatinted with our education system that suppresses anything Christian and by default, enforces atheism and evolution on our children? What’s worse, kinetic1, Christians putting up a religious symbol in a public place, or the atheistic, socialist education system, presenting young minds with only one worldview, that being evolutionary and atheistic, as the only reality? How could you not see the double standard?

          • Karolyn

            Jay, children should be taught religious stuff at home. School is for objective education.

          • Jay

            Are you not presently studying religion through the education system?

          • Karolyn

            Jay – That’s kind of a ridiculous question. The objective study of religion in general is a quest for knowledge and understanding. My class is not about Christianity but all world religions. Actually, it would be a great class for older high school students. It might help to promote better understanding and harmony amongst people of different religions.

          • Jay

            I believe that all world views should be presented to children from day one, not just atheism or evolution. Why wait until they are adults? If you believe so, then you should be against teaching children the homosexual lifestyle, and insist, that it be presented to them when they are adults! Karolyn, I’m tired of you and your convoluted sense of values and doublespeak! You are truly a walking contradiction!

          • Karolyn

            Well, Jay, don’t read my posts then!

          • http://naver sook young

            I agree with you Jay. Did you have a Happy Easter? I always remember the day that our Lord and Savior Jesus rose from the dead. Thank you.

            Sook Young
            Wife of the Samurai

          • Jay

            Yes Sook Young, I did have a Happy Easter, for it reminds me that our Lord, Jesus Christ, died for our sins and is now Risen!!!

          • http://naver samurai

            Karolyn, you really need to read the Northwest Ordinance of April 7, 1787. You’ll be amazed as to what Washington wrote about Christianity and our schools. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Dale on the left coast

      HHH . . . . how long have you lived in the “Parallel Universe”? Have you seen Obummer there??? You are another leftist loon . . . Freedom of speach gives you the right to be a FOOL!!!

      • kinetic1

        Dale,
        If you were to write a post confirming your strong belief in Christian teachings and calling Atheism a myth, would it be fair to point out your right to prove yourself a fool as well?

        • http://naver sook young

          Atheism is a myth and not the true faith of Christianity. It believes in human reason over everything else, but how can this be when human reasoning can’t even explain a fraction of what goes on in this world? I shall have to pray for rufus, HHH, and kinetic1 and ask God to forgive them their ignorance and to enter into their lives. Thank you.

          Sook Young
          Wife of the Samurai

    • Jay

      HHH, If you are trying to convince us that you are a scientist, you’re are doing a very poor job! No proof, is not proof, that God doesn’t exist! Science 101, you remember science class? True science does not support nor refute the existence or non-exstance of God! What sort of proof are you looking for, scientific? Science deals only with the natural, what we can see, touch or smell. Why would use a limited tool such as science to prove the non-existence or existence of God, are you an imbecile?

    • Jay

      There’s plenty of evidence, the problem is, you reject all the evidence! Besides, since we and the universe are finite, which means we have a beginning, and, it is scientifically understood and believed that finite must have a cause, then tell me, bright boy, if we choose to believe there is no cause, how then can finite explain its existence? If you truly knew what you were talking about, you would understand this very simple scientific fact, that the cause of finite must be infinite! Do you even understand the definition of the terms, finite and infinite? Rufus, when it comes to this subject, you are a booby twit, a simpleton! You should find yourself another room where the subject discussed is more in your range!

    • James

      HHH, If Jesus hadn’t actually performed all those miraculous healings on thousands of people, Christianity wouldn’t exist.

  • B. Holmes

    Endorsing is not Establishing. Placing a cross is not “Establishing” anything. It certainly isn’t “endorsing”. A cross isn’t an advertisement. Apparently, judges didn’t use a dictionary in law school. But if a cross endorses anything, how does that affect someone who sees it? They obviously do not feel any respect for the officer who died, or for his family.

    • Raggs

      Yeah no kidding… I see crosses all of the time placed on road sides where people were killed in an accident I certainly see no problem with that.

      • rufus

        How about a Buddhist shrine?

        • crystal

          Where there are Buddhist, they have their shrines.

          • rufus

            They here in US. In every state.

  • Ken Stufko

    While I may be Christian I object strongly to ANY memorial being placed on federal/state roads commemorating ANYONE’s death at that spot!. ….. Cemeteries are where that physical manifestation of one’s life is to be noted, NOT the country’s roads. …. Over time our highways and byways will start to look like roadside cemeteries, which is not what anyone had intended in the first place. … I saw the first memorial go up over 15 years ago, and be continually enlarged and annually embellished on westbound Route 78 in Union County New Jersey and now see them popping up regularly on all types of roads. STOP! … why must one’s tragic death, be they state police or average citizen, be continually force-fed down the throats of the driving public? Is this the new subliminal way to slow down speeders? ….. It’s just wrong and our culture condones it without recognizing where this act of self-serving pity will eventually lead.

    • Cawmun Cents

      I object to any sign that is not directional in nature.No more this highway is named after this guy who died,no more this group supported this and now needs a sign posted here,no more billboards,no more “Interstate” signs no more “highway” signs,just the number or name of the road/street/turnpike,you are on.I dont want any”scenic view”signs cluttering up my roads anymore.I am capable of determining what a scenic view is for myself.Is some beautiful woman walking nearby?That is a scenic view but I dont need a sign for it.Similarly if I am driving through a forrest,do I perceive the chance of an animal jumping out on the road?Of course.Do I need a sign to tell me that?Not really.Not unless there is a sign in town that says,”watch for little children retrieving balls in the road.”,or “watch out for dufus and his bad driving habits”.How about this,”watch for skateboarders in the middle of the road”,or watch for stray cats,and squirrels.”Here in California we might just as easily say,”watch for breast implants”,or “homeless crossing”.To much information.

  • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

    The United States is a Christioan nation FOUNDED on Christian principles and beliefs.

    That is one reason our nation has flurished so in the past.

    If the athiests do not like that then they are free to leave ond go to an atheist nation such as China.

    We certainly will not miss them and will encourage them to leave.

    • kinetic1

      Old Henry,
      I understand your view, but it has been shown that many of the accepted “Christian” values were accepted norms in western cultures long before Judaism or Christianity reached their shores. One does not have to be Christian to know right from wrong. In fact, history and observation of our current culture often shows it to be in conflict.

      • Karolyn

        Thanks for that Kinetic. I don’t know why Christians seem to think they hold the patent on values and morals. I believe that man has an innate ability to know right from wrong and does not need to be taught.

        • Jay

          Karolyn, in another room you stated that children, because the parents can’t do it, should be taught by the schools to radically change this culture! If everyone has an innate ability to know right from wrong, as you just stated, then why or what should parents or schools for that matter, teach the kids?

          • Karolyn

            Well, Jay, that is opening up a can of worms. I believe that childlren are born with everything they need to know to live and good life and are “corrupted” by what goes on around them. In the absence of parents who can set a good example, outside resources might just be able to help them find their own way in a positive manner.

          • Jay

            You contradicted yourself, Karolyn, as usual!

          • Karolyn

            Jay – Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean I’m being contradictory. I really don’t have the time to explain myself, and you won’t get it anyway, or you’ll get it in the wrong way.

          • Jay

            Oh I get it Karolyn, and I recognize contradiction when I see it! But that’s your problem, not mine!

      • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

        Kinetic:

        What makes a person a Christian is believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Almight and that He was born, died, rose and paid the price for our sins thru His death on the Roman cross of crucifiction.

        Right from wrong was instilled in us when God created Adam and then Eve. Remember their reaction when God was looking for them in the Garden after they had eaten the forbidden fruit? They hid because they were naked and they knew they had done wrong.

        Judean (Jewish) / Christian values do indeed outdate Christianity as they began at the beginning. It was only when the Isralites wandered from worshiping God Almighty that they fell into disaray and bondage. When they followed God’s tenants they were blessed in unbelievable abondance by God Almighty.

        Look at our time-line history. As we as a nation have pulled God from our society we have been in decline. That decline is escalating now at an alarming rate.

        The only real hope for our nation is another Revival such as we had in the mid-1800s. The TEA Party MIGHT be God’s tool at giving us one last chance before we, like thhe Isralites before us, go into bondage.

        God and Christianity are not the cause of trouble in our nation, or in the world. Satan is the cause, and always has been. Satan roams the earth like a roaring lion. We are all weak. Some weaker than others.

        People like to toss our examples of “real good” Christians who do things that are diametrically opposed to what they have been “preaching”.

        Whom do you think Satan works the hardest on derailing? The strong Christian, or someone not so inclined? Would you rather hunt / bag a 12 point buck, or a squirrel?

        • Jay

          Excellent insight Old Henry, you have a very good grasp of the Word of God, the scriptures, and how they still apply to mankind today! I often think along the same lines you have just posted. It is Christians such as yourself that the Satanic- state, or more precisely, Satan, considers VERY DANGEROUS!!! We will not defeat our foe with guns or bullets, but rather with the Word of God! Despite what his idiotic dolts that follow him do or say, satan believes that God exists, and satan knows that his time as a despot ruler over mankind is very short. This is the sinister reason behind this idiotic issue we are discussing with respect to religious symbols in public places! The charge that these religious symbols are considered offensive or that they impose religious beliefs on anyone, is ridiculous. Could not a church on public property with a cross on its roof be considered a religious symbol, or a mosque for that matter? Nonsense! This moronic assumption that religious symbols impose a particular religious belief on people adhere to a different belief, is nothing more then denying freedom of speech, and is part of the sinister plot to expunge, any belief in God or His laws and His Gospel which is for the salvation of man, from the consciousness of humanity!!!

      • http://naver sook young

        Sorry kinetic1, but many of the western nations had Christians in them before they became independent nations. Remember Judism and Christianity spread across the Roman Empire long before there was England, France, and so on. Sorry, but it seems you have come up short this time. Thank you.

        Sook Young
        Wife of the Samurai

  • Geoman

    Is it not true that the courts have recognized the Atheist religion through a designated “Atheists Day”-April 1st (also known as April Fools Day)?

  • http://n.cates@cox.net Norman F.

    When I see one of those crosses beside a roadway, it shows me that someone cares for the person who is commemorated. It also shows me that the section of highway may have a danger that is not obvious and I should be especially alert there.
    I vote to accept the Bill of Rights as it was intended; putting limits on the laws Congress could make. After all, they were written because most states refused to ratify the Constitution because it gave too much power to the Feds. Read the Federalist Papers! They were designed to show the States that they would not be under the thumb of Congress.

    • http://Illinois'17th Old Henry

      And Little Barry Soetoro has stated on a Chi Ca Go FM radio station that he views our Bill of Rights is a NEGATIVE Bill of Rights.

      It was an interview in, I bellieve, 2002.

  • Mac

    What is a “law?” Seems to me that far too many actions by persons who are not congress-persons are being interpreted as “law.” VIGILANT said it before: If CONGRESS has not passed a law regarding these crosses, I don’t see how they can be considered as being “erected by law.” We need some judges with more guts to make more reasonable judgements about what is law and what is not.

  • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner
    • Karolyn

      coal miner – At least they don’t do it any more. We can’t undo what’s been done.

  • http://marcum1@wildblue.net coal miner
    • Jay

      Hey, coal miner, don’t you ever speak? All you do is post links that contain someone else’s opinion, like a dutiful, little puppet! What’s your opinion, and why don’t you ever make mention of it? You do know how to write, don’t you?

  • http://com i41

    Do what Andrew Jackson did, se;; off all federal owned land and clear up our debt. Put the land on the tax rolls and if any short on brains enviors need to home steads the 160 acres. See how many of the tree and game lovers finally are alive following their stupid thought processes in a year in reality. Also the pukes need to not be able yo buy and purchase any guns or ammo.

    • HHH

      to i41, time to put down the wine glass!!

  • HHH

    To Jay, Old Henry and the others of similar ilk, the argument of proving something that does not exist is inane. One cannot prove a negative. And the claim that god exists requires the claimant to demonstrate the proof. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. Atheism isn’t a religion, but by definition is a rejection of a god… And I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. Christopher Hitchens has stated and I agree, “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof”. And with regard to religion, I quote Robert Pirsig, “When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity, when many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.” And that just about sums it up…. continue, if you must, to “believe” in the myths, I will prefer to trust in reason!!

    • Jay

      HHH says: the argument of proving something that does not exist is insane.

      What’s insane HHH, is your statement and your weak logic which your statement reveals! How can you prove something that doesn’t exist, when you have already determined that it doesn’t exist, and yet, have not proved it doesn’t exist? HHH, do you not read what you write?

    • Vigilant

      HHH says, ““What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof”.

      Therefore, we can dismiss everything you’ve said so far.

      • Jay

        Since you have asserted, without proof, that God doesn’t exist, your assertion therefore, that God doesn’t exist, must be dismissed!

        • Jay

          My apologies Vigilant, I didn’t read your post before posting mine, which essentially echoes yours!

  • Ridge Runner

    I have read about enough of this bullshit about religon or no religon this religon that religon.about these crosses on the side of the highways as long as it isn’t in the road way or to close to the pavement to naybe cause some one physical harm what is the problem.If a person belives black is white that is his problem not mine. If he tries to beat me over the head with it he still has a problem,me. ketsup1 icallyou that because i think you are like ketsup just a bunch of shit.There are several people commenting on here that needs to get a job at the maytag factory your are nothing but agitators.The world is the same as it has been since it started.there is always some one that is smarter than any one else and wants to tell every one how to do things. these are smart ass folks.I don’t care what you belive as long you don’t try to push it down my throat.If you wikk just look and think about this just about all of the people in all parts of the world belive there is a supreme diety(or god) they just call him different names.I also think some of these religous people were wiped out(in egypt they used mushrooms) and was seeing lots of maybe pink elefants.The native indians in the now us south west used peyote cactus and they said they saw great visions of important things.I think you have the right to belive what you want to about religon as long you don’t abuse your fellow man that is his right to.Just note that almost 100% belive there is a supreme being So cut out the nonsense and try to help and not hinder.The only reljgon that i think gets a failing grade is the muslum religon. These pe0ple will kill men women and babies in the name of religon. They will even kill their own family members in the name of religon. I just can’t fathom this being any kind of a viableway to act.

    • Jay

      Ridge Runner, how far did you get in school, grade 3?

      • Jay

        My apologies Ridge Runner, my above comment was meant for someone else!

  • Jay

    American Atheists, a group based in Texas, spearheaded a lawsuit against Utah in 2005, arguing that white crosses commemorating deceased highway troopers suggested Utah’s preference for Christianity.
    SO WHAT? Not exactly an issue to beleaguer the courts and waste tax-payers money on! What nonsense! Clearly, the group, the american atheist’s are engaging in suppressing freedom of speech and expressing their hatred for Christianity. The name of the organization, american atheists, says it all! The issue here is not the Christian religious symbol, the cross, but what that symbol represents, Christianity! That is the fly in the organization’s ointment. And if the court system capitulates to their idiotic and racists request, then the justice system will be accomplice and should be held in contempt for violating freedom speech! Are there not more important issues that plague our country that we should be focused on, rather then this NON-ISSUE! How can we be so easily distracted by such unimportant and idiotic drivel?

    • http://naver samurai

      100% agree! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • rufusmin

    when you get right downn to it, the Bible is the world’s greatest human psychology textbook: all the foibles and quirks of humankind are in it. also, between shakespeare and the bible, everything has been said. think about it. so much of our language is full of phrases and “sayings” dervied from those two sources. in fact, i think EVERYTHING we say is.

  • James

    Whether constitutional or not, I oppose honoring the dead with any kind of sign, along our highways. If we start with policemen who died in the line of duty, how about firemen (e.g., the 343 that died in the WTC towers) etc., etc. I would see just green grass.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.